more death of YOUR rights... from the right

I'm sure I will catch flack for this, and I'm okay with that. I'm doing both, playing devil's advocate and saying something that makes sense.

I haven't read all of the replies, but the first so many had the same theme to them.

One reply was that regulating the age limit is not something NY State Leg. should have the power to do. If a state can regulate the drivers on its roads, why can't it regulate the pilots in its airspace, and those who learn to drive/fly in their state?

Secondly, becoming a pilot is an extremely large responsibility that comes with grave dangers. If states are questioning whether or not they should raise the age students learn to drive, it makes sense that they might question the age students learn to fly.

I myself am a member of AOPA, and am a conservative against big government (yes, the right is generally for less government). While I do not have a strong opinion either way as to what age people should be allowed to fly . . . but there is quick screaming and pointing fingers for something that could make logical sense.
 
[ QUOTE ]
One reply was that regulating the age limit is not something NY State Leg. Should have the power to do. If a state can regulate the drivers on its roads, why can't it regulate the pilots in its airspace, and those who learn to drive/fly in their state?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. New York State does not 'own' or control the airspace. it is Federal air space, this is needed to be sure that a state doesn't say.... require all airplanes to fly inverted while over their state.


[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, becoming a pilot is an extremely large responsibility that comes with grave dangers. If states are questioning whether or not they should raise the age students learn to drive, it makes sense that they might question the age students learn to fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Because it is a Federal Certificate, NOT a state one. Now if NY state wanted to pass a law that no business could teach a student under 20, that's fine. it isn't an infringement on the individual's rights. it is like in most states it is not aginst the law for minors to drink, it against the law to sell them beer or give it to them..

[ QUOTE ]

..conservative against big government (yes, the right is generally for less government). ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Koff koff (TSA, National Security administration) koff koff
 
Eagle,
The City of Chicago is well within its right to destroy Meigs Field as it wishes when it chooses. Mayor Daley, however, acted at night without notification to the FAA or any government agency and simply bulldozed the runway. As a pilot and holder of a federal certificate, I believe that he does not have the right to destroy an airfield without notifying the appropriate agencies. What if one of us needed that airfield for an emergency and unknown to us, it has been bulldozed without a notam issued. I could care less what party Daley belongs to. His strong arm tactics should not be tolerated. He sets a precedent that may empower other local authorities to exercise control over aviation. If you would think for a second and get off your liberal horse, maybe you would realize the danger this poses to all of us aviators.
 
Yeah it was a pretty good tactic on Daley's part, destroy the field now, ask questions later, cause he knows there's no way in hell it's going to be rebuilt. Sounds like typical politician behaviour to me.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Eagle,
The City of Chicago is well within its right to destroy Meigs Field as it wishes when it chooses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. we argree. And it is not an infringement of *your* civil rights... That my friend, is my point, so often missed by the angry Tory folk.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that he does not have the right to destroy an airfield without notifying the appropriate agencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing "Rights" with common sense, legalities, or decency. They are not mutually exclusive.

[ QUOTE ]
His strong arm tactics should not be tolerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, that is a valid statement that needs to be embraced across the political spectrum. Are you with me or against me?


[ QUOTE ]
He sets a precedent that may empower other local authorities to exercise control over aviation. If you would think for a second and get off your liberal horse, maybe you would realize the danger this poses to all of us aviators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is being factually correct equated to being on a high horse?

Here is a clip from a press release for a group that I am very active with regarding government intrusion and meddling with airports. FWIW the town council that was trying to CONDEMN our local PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC USE AIRPORT to prevent improvement of the runway and infrastructure are all republicans…

Quote: The Institute for Justice was the host of the recent conference on eminent domain held in Washington, D.C. which drew attendees from across the country. Among them was Don Baldwin, a founding member of the Readington, NJ based CO$T (Citizens Opposed to Shameful Takings) organization. The group has been very active in opposing the controversial condemnations of several NJ properties, including the Solberg Airport in Hunterdon County
"One thing that became clear at this meeting, was that the seizure of private property for non-essential, non-infrastructure purposes, is not confined to one region or state," said Baldwin. "It's wide-spread in many parts of the country and there seems to be a ‘because we can’ attitude exhibited by some government agencies."


BT
 
Another Scum from Washington, this time from the left.

What a butthole…


New Jersey US Congressman Steven Rothman put out a news release today
calling for additional restrictions on general aviation within 15 miles
of New York city.
(http://www.house.gov/rothman/news_releases/rel_040203.htm)
Congressman Rothman states, " It is unacceptable that New York City, the site of the greatest terrorist attack in American history, still has not been given the same protection from general aviation aircraft that Washington, DC has in place today to protects its people and important sites. "

EAA asks that you call (202) 225-5062 or email(http://www.house.gov/rothman/contact_steve.htm) his office today and let him know your concerns.

Let his office know that the Federal Aviation Administration, The
Transportation Security Administration, the Department of Transportation and
the Department of Homeland Security has evaluated the treat of general
aviation aircraft and has determined that they do not pose a
significant threat that warrants additional restrictions. Also remind the
Congressman that general aviation has not been involved in any terrorist attack to
Date and that general aviation aircraft pose less of a threat than the
Thousands of personnel vehicles that travel into and out of New York City every
day.
 
Back
Top